Archive for the 'bad character' Category

Regina v C – WLR Daily

Regina v C [2010] EWCA Crim 2971; [2011] WLR (D) 347

“Where a defendant wished to challenge evidence of earlier convictions which the Crown sought to deploy as relevant to the question of whether the defendant was responsible for the commission of the offences for which he was on trial, the defendant’s bare assertion that he did not commit those earlier offences was inadequate; it was essential that the defendant provide a detailed defence statement identifying all the ingredients of the case which he proposed to advance for the purpose of discharging the evidential burden of proving that he did not commit the earlier offences.”

WLR Daily, 23rd December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Attorney General: Contempt of Court: why it still matters – Attorney General’s Office

“The Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP, has delivered the Criminal Bar Association’s Kalisher lecture entitled ‘Contempt of Court: why it still matters’.”

Full story

Attorney General’s Office, 12th October 2010

Source: www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk

Regina v Hamer – WLR Daily

Regina v Hamer [2010] WLR (D) 235

“A fixed penalty notice which had been issued to a defendant pursuant to s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was not a conviction, admission of guilt, proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the defendant’s character, and therefore could not be regarded as evidence which impugned the character of the defendant or admitted as such.”

WLR Daily, 20th August 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Brewster – WLR Daily

Regina v Brewster  [2010] EWCA Crim 1194; [2010] WLR (D) 159

“Where a party sought to admit evidence of a witness’s bad character which bore only indirectly on his credibility, and that credibility was a matter in issue in the proceedings and of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, such evidence was only admissible pursuant to s 100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as evidence of substantial probative value on the issue of creditworthiness if it was reasonably capable of assisting a fair minded jury to reach a view as to whether the witness’s evidence was worthy of belief.”

WLR Daily, 25th June 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Miller – WLR Daily

Regina v Miller [2010] EWCA Crim 1153; [2010] WLR (D) 142

“In criminal proceedings, the circumstances in which one party would be permitted pursuant to s 100(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to ask a witness a question in cross-examination with a view to eliciting an answer implicating that witness in bad behaviour, which behaviour that party would be otherwise unable to prove, were infrequent and limited in scope.”

WLR Daily, 3rd June 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Braithwaite – WLR Daily

Regina v Braithwaite [2010] EWCA Crim 1082; [2010] WLR (D) 141

“Material contained in police crime reports that unproven allegations had been made against a person who was someone other than a defendant, or that that person had been investigated in respect of an offence, would rarely be of substantial probative value to an issue at trial sufficient to render it admissible as evidence of bad character against that person pursuant to s 100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.”

WLR Daily, 3rd June 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Criminal law: use of hearsay evidence; professional conduct – Law Society’s Gazette

“The Supreme Court in R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC14 has upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that, in appropriate circumstances, the Crown may rely wholly or mainly on hearsay evidence to establish its case. The Court of Appeal had, however, emphasised the need to check the reliability of the hearsay evidence in such situations.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 11th February 2010

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk


March 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories